|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|China||India||Irish Republic||Jamaica||Lithuania||Nigeria||Pakistan||Poland||Somali||Vietnam||Top 10||Remainder|
Alan Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what progress he has made in establishing the extent of the practice of transferring prisoners prior to official inspections across the prison estate in England and Wales; 
(2) what progress he has made in determining the motivation behind the recent transfer of prisoners prior to inspection reports; and what steps his Department is taking to prevent this happening in future. 
Mr. Straw: The review of the extent of the practice of transferring prisoners from one prison to another prior to inspection was announced in my statement to the House on 20 October 2009. The director of Analytical Services has started her investigations which will cover the extent of the practice of transferring prisoners prior to inspection.
In that statement I made clear that the investigation into the temporary transfers of prisoners between Pentonville and Wandsworth prisons had found that they had been arranged as deliberate attempts to manipulate the outcomes of the inspections.
The director general of NOMS, Phil Wheatley, has written to all governors to reiterate that the temporary transfer of prisoners to manipulate inspection outcomes is unacceptable. I issued a public statement reflecting Mr. Wheatley's message.
Alan Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he expects the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman and Her Majesty's Coroner to complete their investigations into the self-inflicted death of the prisoner transferred to HM Prison Pentonville, following a court appearance, in the week before an inspection, and held there during the inspection before being returned to HM Prison Wandsworth. 
Maria Eagle: The prisons and probation ombudsman (PPO) and the coroner will both undertake independent investigations into the self-inflicted death of the prisoner at HMP Wandsworth. The timings for completion of those investigations are a matter for the PPO and coroner respectively.
Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the forecast percentage change to their annual budget is for each prison in England for which he has responsibility for financial years (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12 and (c) 2012-13 compared to their budget for the previous financial year. 
Maria Eagle: The National Offender Management Service is undertaking a budget review process with its regions to determine the budget for prisons in 2010-11. In planning for 2010-11 prisons are using indicative guidelines of a 5 per cent. budget reduction but their final budgets will not be determined until the review process is complete, later this year.
Mr. Pelling: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people in the London Borough of Croydon who were remanded in custody in each year between 1997 and 2008 were not convicted of the offences in respect of which they were remanded in custody; and how many days in total such people spent on remand in each such year. 
Maria Eagle: There are two complementary processes for determining the effectiveness of youth offending teams (YOTs). The HMI probation inspection regime looks in depth at practice around the key areas of public protection, safe guarding and risk of harm. The inspection process reports its findings in terms of the level of improvement that is required against each of the core areas. The descriptors used are as follows:
Drastic improvement required;
Substantial improvement required;
Moderate improvement required; and
Minimum improvement required.
The Youth Justice Board monitors and assesses YOT Partnership performance through its Youth Justice Performance Framework. This assessment is at a strategic level and looks at the key outcomes of: reducing reoffending;
first time entrants; engagement in education, training and employment; access to suitable accommodation; public and victim confidence and reducing numbers in custody (with race disproportionality also addressed in each of these areas). The descriptors used are outstanding, good, satisfactory or poor. The combined results are used to inform the Youth Justice Board's overall judgment of the YOT Partnership, both in terms of performance and prospects for improvement.
Claire Ward: The published national statistics on adult and juvenile reoffending are not broken down by area. However, as part of the National Indicator Set, NI19: Juvenile Reoffending provide these data at the local level. This measure is different from the published National Statistics on reoffending for England and Wales.
Juvenile reoffending data are available for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2008. For 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 data are based on a cohort of offenders that received a pre-court disposal (reprimand or final warning) or a first-tier or community penalty or were released from custody between October and December of that year. Data on this previous measure for the 2002-05 cohorts were reported in early 2004-07 respectively. After 2007 the basis of the measure changed to offenders that received a pre-court disposal (reprimand or final warning) or a first-tier or community penalty or were released from custody between January and March. Data on this new basis are available for the 2005 and 2008 cohorts-the former submitted retrospectively in September 2008, and the latter returned in July 2009.
The local juvenile reoffending measure differs from the published national Statistics on juvenile reoffending. The primary difference is that the data source is administrative data held by youth offending teams, whereas the National Statistics are produced using the police national computer. There are therefore differences in the offences which count towards reoffending. In addition to this, local juvenile reoffending data are based on a one year follow up period with a further three months allowed for any cautions or convictions to occur, whereas the National Statistics allow a six month period for cautions or convictions.
These data are available broken down by youth offender team area. The areas used are not coterminous with local authorities in all cases. The details are included in the tables, which I will place in the Libraries.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the average cost of placing a young person in (a) a secure children's home, (b) a secure training centre and (c) a young offender's institute was in each year since 1997. 
Maria Eagle: The information requested is currently being collated and I hope to be in a position to write to the hon. Member before the end of the year to provide the average costs in each year since 2000 when the Youth Justice Board was established.
As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning, how many and what proportion of civil servants are paid more than £50,000 per annum. (300813).
The Office for National Statistics collects the annual salaries of civil servants, as part of the Annual Civil Service Employment Survey (ACSES).
The requested data are attached at Annex A.
|Annex A Number of individual civil servants paid more than £50,000 per annum( 1,2,3) 31 March 2008|
|Greater than £50,000||Proportion to total (pe rcentage )( 3)|
|(1) Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.|
(2) Based on actual annual gross salaries.
(3) At 31 March 2008 there were 515,660 permanent civil servants. As part of the 2008 data collection 3,620 salaries were not recorded by government departments for individual civil servants. These civil servants have been excluded from the proportion to total estimate.
Annual Civil Service Employment Survey (ACSES)
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|